Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 11th Feb 2010 20:56 UTC
Windows Sometimes, you come across news items that make you go "eh...?" This is definitely one of them: Microsoft has announced a new anti-piracy update for Windows 7 that phones home every 90 days to check for new activation cracks, but the update is entirely optional - which kind of makes me wonder about the point.
Order by: Score:
Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Thu 11th Feb 2010 21:01 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

This is for the benefit of consumers who get duped by dodgy retailers installing pirate copies.

I welcome this move by Microsoft, I don’t like to have to tell users that they got conned.

Reply Score: 11

RE: Comment by Kroc
by BluenoseJake on Thu 11th Feb 2010 21:20 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I agree, and with that lawsuit over WGA finally behind them, I can understand why they are being cautious.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Kroc
by darknexus on Thu 11th Feb 2010 21:31 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

I have to agree this time. I serviced a friend's computer once, she'd had it repaired at a computer shop that is consequently no longer in business. The computer shop put a pirated copy of XP on there, and didn't even do a good job of it. Remember the FCKGW key? That's what they used. It was full of malware largely because she couldn't get updates and didn't know about it. Yes, that's right, she was still on straight XP with no service packs.
That's what this update is designed to stop. People who do pirate their windows on their own, while I do not condone illegally using software you don't own, are going to be smart enough not to install this update. Even if it was required, it'd be easy enough to avoid it if you know what you're doing. This will help out the people who got a pirated Windows unknowingly, either from a dodgy retailer or a friend or whatever.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Thu 11th Feb 2010 21:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Ah, good o’l FCKGW, and its best friend TBBBG!

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by umccullough on Thu 11th Feb 2010 22:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

I serviced a friend's computer once, she'd had it repaired at a computer shop that is consequently no longer in business. The computer shop put a pirated copy of XP on there, and didn't even do a good job of it.


I'm not sure I'd even really call that piracy, except for the technicality of it. It almost sounds like they maybe had to reinstall the machine to 'repair' it (unless part of the repair was to upgrade it from something else).

I have, on several occasions, been forced to reinstall an entire machine for someone (due to HD failure, etc.) only to find out they don't have any restore CDs or likewise. This leaves me in a tricky situation, and I then have to discuss with the owner of the computer what their options are (if you get my meaning).

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Thu 11th Feb 2010 22:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

What, a new copy of Windows, or Ubuntu?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by DrillSgt on Fri 12th Feb 2010 11:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

What, a new copy of Windows, or Ubuntu?


Well, if it is a name brand machine, the windows key is stuck right to the outside of the machine, along with which version it is. Which means you can re-install and just use that key. No need to purchase a new copy of windows, as that is perfectly legal to do.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc - doesn't work
by jabbotts on Fri 12th Feb 2010 15:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

XP and newer disks have been coded to specific serial numbers. Unless you have the generation of disk image or original disk, that serial number sticker on the case may be of no use. I've had to use the fck'd disk to do the base install, then a utility to replace it with the customer's valid serial number, then go get updates.

Reply Score: 2

DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

XP and newer disks have been coded to specific serial numbers. Unless you have the generation of disk image or original disk, that serial number sticker on the case may be of no use. I've had to use the fck'd disk to do the base install, then a utility to replace it with the customer's valid serial number, then go get updates.


Interesting to know. I have never run into that problem in all the years since XP came out. I'll keep it in mind if I do see it.

Reply Score: 2

daddio Member since:
2007-07-14

Nah, there are just a few disk/key combinations. Most repair shops (those worth their salt) know what they are and have disk images for the ones that you see frequently...

I recall the COA (certificate of authenticity only, aka OEM) version is the usual for the sticker on the case, then there was the retail box, and the infamous corporate site license keys which were so popular before WGA. There were a couple others as well, but not common.

Anyone tech who installs a corporate key on a box with a sticker is a moron. and yes, I've seen it a good number of times.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by darknexus on Thu 11th Feb 2010 22:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Except in that case they would have asked. This was well past the time of SP2's release and they knowingly installed with a pirated key that wouldn't have even been valid for sp1 let alone sp2. They didn't inform anyone of this either. I'd call that dodgy for sure.
In either case, that particular place no longer exists. Perhaps they got caught? By the time I discovered this they were already gone.

Edited 2010-02-11 22:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by umccullough on Thu 11th Feb 2010 22:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

This was well past the time of SP2's release and they knowingly installed with a pirated key that wouldn't have even been valid for sp1 let alone sp2.


BTW, pirated copies of Windows XP *do* still support automatic updates. You just can't use the windows update website any longer, last I checked.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Thu 11th Feb 2010 22:23 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

But you can’t install SPs—they check. edit: Oh, and WMP11.

Edited 2010-02-11 22:24 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by Kroc - no WMP11?
by jabbotts on Fri 12th Feb 2010 15:56 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Kroc"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

There is a benefit to it then! ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by darknexus on Fri 12th Feb 2010 00:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Sure, but there's only so far you can go without the service packs and it wasn't far enough. That key didn't work at all for sp1. That was very well known. So she got updates up to a point but no further, which translated to being about two years behind in updates. It wasn't pretty, putting it mildly.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by satan666 on Thu 11th Feb 2010 22:28 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
satan666 Member since:
2008-04-18

This is for the benefit of consumers who get duped by dodgy retailers installing pirate copies.

I welcome this move by Microsoft, I don’t like to have to tell users that they got conned.

The consumers get conned anyway, even if they get a genuine copy.
Edited for typos.

Edited 2010-02-11 22:29 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by nt_jerkface on Thu 11th Feb 2010 23:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

There's a big problem on ebay with people selling computers with pirated copies of Windows. If a seller repeatedly gets complaints then he'll get banned.

I know some people would like all activation features removed but I also remember how common casual piracy was in the Windows 98 days.

The other reason this may be optional is to reduce false positives. Someone I knew had a legit XP machine and hadn't been opened yet repeatedly went false positive. I eventually cracked it after getting tired of making phone calls.

So it looks like they are going with a more passive approach and focusing on white box and used sales. They probably also want a lot of the pirates on XP to upgrade for security reasons. A lot of pirates in the third world have old copies of XP with updates turned off (shudder).

Edited 2010-02-12 00:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by chaosotter
by chaosotter on Thu 11th Feb 2010 21:57 UTC
chaosotter
Member since:
2007-07-20

Neither my car, nor my house, nor any of my other possessions accuse me of having stolen them every 90 days.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by chaosotter
by umccullough on Thu 11th Feb 2010 22:19 UTC in reply to "Comment by chaosotter"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Neither my car, nor my house, nor any of my other possessions accuse me of having stolen them every 90 days.


Well... your car may not accuse you of stealing it, but if it has OnStar, and the proper authorities decide it's a stolen vehicle, it won't be long before they find it (and you).

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by chaosotter
by lemur2 on Thu 11th Feb 2010 22:28 UTC in reply to "Comment by chaosotter"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Neither my car, nor my house, nor any of my other possessions accuse me of having stolen them every 90 days.


Neither your car, nor your house, has anything like the number of terrific anti-features that Windows does!

http://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2007/fall/antifeatures/

http://www.geekzone.co.nz/foobar/6207

http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/development/8FC32A7B611E877ACC2...

Edited 2010-02-11 22:29 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Comment by chaosotter
by BluenoseJake on Thu 11th Feb 2010 23:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by chaosotter"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

That link is useless, it's a guy complaining about crap that went down over 14 years ago, then goes on to spout vague crap about drm, popups and NT's "predatory pricing" NT????. Holy gods, get over it.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by chaosotter
by lemur2 on Fri 12th Feb 2010 00:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by chaosotter"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

That link is useless, it's a guy complaining about crap that went down over 14 years ago, then goes on to spout vague crap about drm, popups and NT's "predatory pricing" NT????. Holy gods, get over it.


The wonderful thing is that today, because of ongoing innovation, there are ever more wonderful anti-features in contemporary versions of Windows.

Windows 7 starter is a marvel at this ... all that software already delivered to your machine but disabled so you can't run it. This is such a brilliant, new and innovative anti-feature that AFAIK Microsoft have patented it.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/19/1931249

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/06/06/microsoft_dmp_patent_applic...

Yep, here it is:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d...

"Restricted software and hardware usage on a computer"

Fantatsic, hey!

This is what people pay Microsoft for!

Apple are starting to compete in this market as well, but Linux just doesn't have any of this category of software at all.

Edited 2010-02-12 01:01 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by chaosotter
by ssa2204 on Fri 12th Feb 2010 01:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by chaosotter"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

Some things never change. Lemur2, you are exactly like Brett Favre, just never willing to give up (those here in North America will know who I am talking about). I loved the Super Bowl commercial with him accepting the 2020 MVP award saying something like "maybe I should just retire.....". Yes, in 2020 Lemur2 will still be ranting about the evils of Windows, yet never truly accepting or explaining why Linux will still have 1% desktop OS market share.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by chaosotter
by lemur2 on Fri 12th Feb 2010 02:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by chaosotter"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Some things never change. Lemur2, you are exactly like Brett Favre, just never willing to give up (those here in North America will know who I am talking about). I loved the Super Bowl commercial with him accepting the 2020 MVP award saying something like "maybe I should just retire.....". Yes, in 2020 Lemur2 will still be ranting about the evils of Windows, yet never truly accepting or explaining why Linux will still have 1% desktop OS market share.


Now you are just trying to deflect the issue. Seriously, I mean it, you can cheerlead for Linux all you like, but Linux is just about a complete non-starter in this anti-feature field of software.

Aside from the almost-complete lack of third party anti-user-malware written for Linux, I mean, just look at the poor feature list for most of the Linux distributions themselves:
- An utter lack of single-platform exclusivity,
- No activation codes or CD keys, no anti-piracy,
- No spyware or phone-home of any kind,
- No EULAs,
- No time-limited trialware, or nagware,
- No software license monitors,
- No CALs,
- No backdoors or killswitches,
- No DRM,
- The browser and media player are not irremoveable,
- Limited to a mundane, standard selection of non-exclusive data formats and protocols,
- No prohibition of re-distribution, and
- No "genuine advantage".

Well, that last one isn't quite true, there is a Linux Genuine Advantage, but it is not included by default, you have to download it and install it separately, from here:

www.linuxgenuineadvantage.org

Windows has all of the above list well covered. Also, with most Linux distributions there is no virus scanner running, none at all! When it comes to software updates ... in Linux there is often only the one updater. In Windows you can perhaps get a dozen or so running!

So, as you can see, Windows is a hands-down winner in this software category.

Americans are well ahead of the rest of the world here, because Windows has far greater coverage of that market than it does the rest of the world. Apparently non-American peoples just aren't as good at seeing the reasons to use Windows.

Edited 2010-02-12 02:25 UTC

Reply Score: 13

v RE[6]: Comment by chaosotter
by ssa2204 on Fri 12th Feb 2010 04:19 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by chaosotter"
RE[7]: Comment by chaosotter
by lemur2 on Fri 12th Feb 2010 04:33 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by chaosotter"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The problem with twats like you is that you can rant on and list everything that you find wrong with Windows, you fail to realize how much this says about Linux. It should be the biggest red flag in the world when your beloved OS can't get above a measly 1% over something this horrible? What the f**k does that have to say about desktop Linux? Just give it up already, Linux will NEVER compete on the desktop, 99% of us with more than two working braincells long ago figured out this is not the OS's strength but it's Achilles heal. You want to whine, cry, lay blame, and make idiotic excuses as to why the markets are the way they are. I merely will respond to say look at the CPU market over the past 20 years with Intel/Cyrix/AMD. That should educate enough to know why products succeed and fail, and if you can't figure out why Cyrix failed and AMD broke through, then you will NEVER in a thousand years understand why Linux on the desktop will continue to fail year in and year out....and why you will still be crying like a baby in 2020


As I have been trying to say, you are absolutely correct. Those of us with a few more than just two braincells, maybe even as many as six braincells for some of us, can easily see why we should stick with the current sitauation where people should only be able to buy Windows in shops, so that they can enjoy the plethora of anti-features that their money can buy.

All of those unfortunates burdened with a hyper-abundance of braincells (i.e. more than say six), and who are needlessly bothered with things like an accurate accounting, can suffer an utter lack of anti-features.

http://blog.linuxtoday.com/blog/2009/05/1-linux-market.html

Edited 2010-02-12 04:35 UTC

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

So your considering the 1% market share measurement based on retail channels and inflated MS license figures as a valid measurement? I may not agree with everything Lemur has to say but I find it laughable that you'd call retail market share figures valid outside of a sales staff meeting.

The distributions for FOSS platforms are far more broad than simply counting retail units passing through doors.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by chaosotter
by Tuishimi on Sat 13th Feb 2010 17:41 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by chaosotter"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

What's a twat?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by chaosotter
by tomcat on Fri 12th Feb 2010 07:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by chaosotter"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Now you are just trying to deflect the issue. Seriously, I mean it, you can cheerlead for Linux all you like, but Linux is just about a complete non-starter in this anti-feature field of software.


Linux on the desktop is a non-starter, period. Don't get me wrong: I like Linux a lot. I coded on it throughout grad school, and found it to be a great server platform. It has seen some moderate success on netbooks. Google is doing some interesting work with Linux for their upcoming Chrome OS. But unless and until Chrome OS takes off, desktop Linux is dead. Stick a fork in it. It will remain a great resource for technologists/hobbyists, but it won't see broad market adoption. Ever. So, please, do all of us a favor and stop making comparisons between Windows and Linux, because they aren't even in the same ballpark, let alone the same city. Everything you say is a moot point.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by chaosotter
by google_ninja on Fri 12th Feb 2010 15:32 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by chaosotter"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I know this is a troll, and if your point is that Linux does a better job in a "consumer rights" sense, it would be hard for anyone to argue with that.

For the purposes of discussion though, I think some of your list is a bit off ;-)


- No activation codes or CD keys, no anti-piracy,
- No time-limited trialware, or nagware,


I know codeweavers offers a trial version that requires a CD key, and JetBrains products have keys, trials, and will check your network for duplicate installations. I'm sure there are more, those are just two that I have run into.

- No EULAs

http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_rha_eula.html

- No DRM

Tell that to Tivo or the Android team ;-)
Not that linus has a problem with DRM http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2003042401126OSKNLL

- The browser and media player are not irremoveable

They aren't in windows either. Removing the libraries is the hard part.

- Limited to a mundane, standard selection of non-exclusive data formats and protocols

Well, depending on where you live, there is no legal way to play DVDs, BluRays, or h264 (all of which are de facto standards). All of those are available out of the box in Win7, DVDs and h264 were on Vista, and while they weren't in the box in XP, you could at least buy apps relatively cheaply that did the job.

Again, not saying that you aren't right in a general sort of way. Just that you aren't right about those specific points.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by chaosotter
by WereCatf on Fri 12th Feb 2010 05:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by chaosotter"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

lemur2, I just have to say this, as off-topic as it is: I really love Linux, I love open-source, I really do hope Linux will become more mainstream some day in the future....BUT, YOU are really f*cking annoying and sound like a freaking broken record! Even when the discussion at hand is about _WINDOWS_ you pop in there and start frothing about Linux like a rabid troglodyte and your incessant whining about Windows and Windows users is really pissing people off.

Can't you please, for heavens sake, either leave your Linux comments to an article about Linux, or be quiet?

Reply Score: 12

RE[5]: Comment by chaosotter
by Bending Unit on Fri 12th Feb 2010 07:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by chaosotter"
Bending Unit Member since:
2005-07-06

This lady speaks the truth!

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by chaosotter
by lemur2 on Fri 12th Feb 2010 09:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by chaosotter"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

lemur2, I just have to say this, as off-topic as it is: I really love Linux, I love open-source, I really do hope Linux will become more mainstream some day in the future....BUT, YOU are really f*cking annoying and sound like a freaking broken record! Even when the discussion at hand is about _WINDOWS_ you pop in there and start frothing about Linux like a rabid troglodyte and your incessant whining about Windows and Windows users is really pissing people off.

Can't you please, for heavens sake, either leave your Linux comments to an article about Linux, or be quiet?


The topic of this thread is actually about an anti-feature of Windows. It is a re-naming of WGA (now to be called WAT, for Windows Activation Technologies), and then combining it with phone-home anti-privacy, in the name of anti-piracy. Strangely enough, at this time this particular Windows anti-feature has apparently been made opt-in for end users, which rather paradoxically seems to negate the entire purpose of the anti-feature in the first place.

Unlike you, I am entirely on topic here.

Here is an aware Windows user reaction to this anti-feature:

http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000681.html

This is typical of what real people actually think about anti-features.

Edited 2010-02-12 10:06 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by chaosotter
by ssa2204 on Fri 12th Feb 2010 12:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by chaosotter"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

No you f--king twat, the topic is regarding an issue for Windows users, to which you are not. To which you are thus just being your usual trolling no f--king life self. Good lord, seek therapy.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by chaosotter
by lemur2 on Fri 12th Feb 2010 13:11 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by chaosotter"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

No you f--king twat, the topic is regarding an issue for Windows users, to which you are not. To which you are thus just being your usual trolling no f--king life self. Good lord, seek therapy.


Tetchy, aren't you?

So tell me, can you answer Lauren Weinstein's question ... who owns your PC?

http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000681.html

All of this brings us to a very basic question. Why would any PC owner -- honest or pirate -- voluntarily participate in such a continuing "phone home" authentication regime?


Lauren is a Windows user. I think she asks a very genuine question.

PS: here is a hint for you ... I'm not trolling here. My POV will always be ... "what is best for the user"? It is that simple. This is not a good thing for users.

Edited 2010-02-12 13:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by chaosotter
by Tuishimi on Sat 13th Feb 2010 17:44 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by chaosotter"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Dammit! Will someone tell me what a TWAT IS?! Bunch of pricks.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by chaosotter
by BluenoseJake on Fri 12th Feb 2010 13:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by chaosotter"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

The DMP article at the Reg has nothing to do with Windows, and is not anticonsumer, it's pro consumer. It is a method of turning of devices in places that they shouldn't be used, say a cell phone in a hospital or a Movie Theatre.

Sounds fricking great to me.

THe second article is talking about restricting software, but in a business setting, you absolutely want to control the software that get installed on your employees computers. That's not a feature for consumers, true, but it is a feature for business.

The DRM exists in Windows not because MS wants it there, but the Content providers want it there to control their customers. If MS did not put the DRM in windows to control HDMI and Blueray processing, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THOSE THINGS AT ALL! Do you think MS wanted to do all that extra work? I don't.

Sorry for yelling, but your rhetoric is getting a bit old.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Comment by chaosotter
by lemur2 on Fri 12th Feb 2010 13:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by chaosotter"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The DMP article at the Reg has nothing to do with Windows, and is not anticonsumer, it's pro consumer. It is a method of turning of devices in places that they shouldn't be used, say a cell phone in a hospital or a Movie Theatre.

Sounds fricking great to me.

THe second article is talking about restricting software, but in a business setting, you absolutely want to control the software that get installed on your employees computers. That's not a feature for consumers, true, but it is a feature for business.

The DRM exists in Windows not because MS wants it there, but the Content providers want it there to control their customers. If MS did not put the DRM in windows to control HDMI and Blueray processing, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THOSE THINGS AT ALL! Do you think MS wanted to do all that extra work? I don't.

Sorry for yelling, but your rhetoric is getting a bit old.


Another tetchy one.

There are a multitude of anti-features built in to Windows, it is almost the essential fabric of the OS, to distrust its very users. You won't be able to defend all of the myriad anti-user anti-features and stay sane. Trust me. Even die-hard Windows supporters are beginning to see this.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by chaosotter
by talaf on Fri 12th Feb 2010 13:44 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by chaosotter"
talaf Member since:
2008-11-19

95% of the (windows) users don't go and look into so-called anti-features, they don't care, the OS is doing its job.

Those 5% that do prolly don't care either, or they wouldn't use the system. I know such features are here, but I'm not disrupted nor am I unwilling to comply to them, because the alternatives provide such crappy desktop experience (stomped some dreams there sorry). There's a reason most people know MS "spy on them" yet don't want alternatives. There's a reason no year is the Linux Desktop year. Linux blowed, still blows and will blow as a desktop because it doesn't provide users with the experience they want. They want the latest games and Word. They don't want FreeCiv, Quake 2 and OOO. They also want GUI all the way, not "GUI most of the way".

MacOSX is working out because they focused on desktop experience and on getting hardware supported, games supported and Office supported. They find applications that works for them, at no command line cost nor hassle cost. There's just no incentive to shoot yourself in the foot as a desktop user by switching to Linux.

Edited 2010-02-12 13:47 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by chaosotter
by lemur2 on Fri 12th Feb 2010 14:19 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by chaosotter"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

95% of the (windows) users don't go and look into so-called anti-features, they don't care, the OS is doing its job.

Those 5% that do prolly don't care either, or they wouldn't use the system. I know such features are here, but I'm not disrupted nor am I unwilling to comply to them, because the alternatives provide such crappy desktop experience (stomped some dreams there sorry). There's a reason most people know MS "spy on them" yet don't want alternatives. There's a reason no year is the Linux Desktop year. Linux blowed, still blows and will blow as a desktop because it doesn't provide users with the experience they want. They want the latest games and Word. They don't want FreeCiv, Quake 2 and OOO. They also want GUI all the way, not "GUI most of the way".

MacOSX is working out because they focused on desktop experience and on getting hardware supported, games supported and Office supported. They find applications that works for them, at no command line cost nor hassle cost. There's just no incentive to shoot yourself in the foot as a desktop user by switching to Linux.


You are of course entitled to your opinion, but sorry, I really don't think it is valid to lie to people, for any reason. I can't really see the point, other than trying to make more money for Microsoft by ripping people off.

The recently released KDE SC 4.4, coming as it does without any anti-features at all, in conjunction with the recently released OpenOffice 3.2, stomps all over the Windows anti-user "desktop experience".

http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/features/3.2/
http://www.h-online.com/open/features/KDE-SC-4-4-Fresh-breeze-for-K...
http://www.kde.org/announcements/4.4/

Seriously good, and innovative, desktop software. Yes, it is "all GUI". Not many people would know about this, it isn't common knowledge at all. Nevertheless, if they were shown Windows 7 and KDE4/OpenOffice3.2 side-by-side, that is doubtless the conclusion they would reach.

Oh dear ... look what you made me do. After a number of attempts by various posters before you, I have finally been enticed to go a bit off-topic. Drat.

Edited 2010-02-12 14:32 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by chaosotter
by BluenoseJake on Fri 12th Feb 2010 14:32 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by chaosotter"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I'm neither a hard core windows supporter or a hard core OSS supporter, but I have a hard time swalling your line of reasoning.

In the OSS world, the drivers and codecs that allow HDMI output and BD/DVD decrypting also has some DRM functionality, otherwise Linux users would not be able to decode or display HD content. DVD John was even arrested for writing the codec to read DVDs.

In that sort of environment, I can totally see why MS would add the DRM components to Windows, the right to decode and display HD content, which MS liscensed for it's customer base (enabling a feature, and do it in such a way that is legal everywhere, including the US), is a feature, not an anti-feature (I think I may have lost some brain cells typing such a silly statment)

You can colour it anyway you want, but MS is not a distributed development effort like OSS, and could easily be sued by the RIAA/MPAA.

MS doesn't have the luxury of avoiding US law. It is a US company, and it can't even avoid EU law, so I think, in this case, their actions are justified.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by chaosotter
by lemur2 on Fri 12th Feb 2010 14:46 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by chaosotter"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I'm neither a hard core windows supporter or a hard core OSS supporter, but I have a hard time swalling your line of reasoning.

In the OSS world, the drivers and codecs that allow HDMI output and BD/DVD decrypting also has some DRM functionality, otherwise Linux users would not be able to decode or display HD content. DVD John was even arrested for writing the codec to read DVDs.


HDMI output, in and of itself, does not entail encryption. The encryption of Blue-ray is HDCP, and it is conducted at each far end of the video link ... which is to say in the optical drive, the OS, and in the TV. HDMI is merely a connector or enabler or carrier if you will between these.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hdmi#HDCP

Because FOSS is not complicit in the anti-user HDCP scheme, it has no keys, and FOSS systems cannot play Blue-Ray media even on systems that have all of the requisite hardware in place. I believe this is a feature of Blue-Ray and HDCP that Microsoft wanted in place ... there is no need for it to be so. If the encryption had been entirely embedded in hardware at either end of the video link, then it would not matter what OS was used. That is the way I believe it should have been done ... just as it is done in a BlueRay player / HD TV pairing with no computer in between.

DVD Jon wrote DeCSS software, which used a key which was extracted I believe from the Xing player software. It was the use of the key that got DVD Jon into some trouble, but the case against him was eventually dropped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvd_jon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS

It is probably this incident which later gave rise to the anti-consumer DMCA laws in the US.

BTW, FOSS software does not use DVD Jon's code, nor his "illegal" key. FOSS DVD player software uses a library called libdvdcss, which has never been legally challenged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libdvdcss

In that sort of environment, I can totally see why MS would add the DRM components to Windows, the right to decode and display HD content, which MS liscensed for it's customer base (enabling a feature, and do it in such a way that is legal everywhere, including the US), is a feature, not an anti-feature (I think I may have lost some brain cells typing such a silly statment)

You can colour it anyway you want, but MS is not a distributed development effort like OSS, and could easily be sued by the RIAA/MPAA.


There is no reason for Microsoft's OS (or any OS for that matter) to be involved at all. Just embed the decryption function right inside the screen hardware, no problemo. The fact that Microsoft's OS is involved implies that Microsoft saw an opportunity to try to lock out other OSes ... again at the expense of the consumers.

MS doesn't have the luxury of avoiding US law. It is a US company, and it can't even avoid EU law, so I think, in this case, their actions are justified.


I don't.

Edited 2010-02-12 14:58 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by chaosotter
by smashIt on Fri 12th Feb 2010 14:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by chaosotter"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

If MS did not put the DRM in windows to control HDMI and Blueray processing, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THOSE THINGS AT ALL! Do you think MS wanted to do all that extra work? I don't.


i don't either, but i believe ms had the chance of killing hdcp and acss by simply not supporting it

the content-mafia would have had to choose between loosing their expensive encryption or loosing the pc-market

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by chaosotter
by BluenoseJake on Fri 12th Feb 2010 14:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by chaosotter"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

No, the customer would have lost the ability to play BD movies, and output to HDMI. The content-mafia (nice term, I like it) sues it's own customers and expects us to pay for each device we play the same content on, they would have gladly taken the hit, probably would have held a press conference claiming they had "won"

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by chaosotter
by lemur2 on Fri 12th Feb 2010 14:30 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by chaosotter"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

No, the customer would have lost the ability to play BD movies, and output to HDMI. The content-mafia (nice term, I like it) sues it's own customers and expects us to pay for each device we play the same content on, they would have gladly taken the hit, probably would have held a press conference claiming they had "won"


They won't win. Not in the long run.

There will be people shouting in the streets, in the screaming words of Howard Beale: "I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074958/

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by chaosotter
by lemur2 on Fri 12th Feb 2010 14:24 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by chaosotter"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"If MS did not put the DRM in windows to control HDMI and Blueray processing, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THOSE THINGS AT ALL! Do you think MS wanted to do all that extra work? I don't.


i don't either, but i believe ms had the chance of killing hdcp and acss by simply not supporting it

the content-mafia would have had to choose between loosing their expensive encryption or loosing the pc-market
"

Precisely.

Further to that, on the topic of anti-features, exactly why are the people required to buy extra encryption hardware for their PCs in order to watch content they have legitimately purchased all to help the anti-consumer agenda of content producers? Where is there any fairness in that deal?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by chaosotter
by WorknMan on Thu 11th Feb 2010 23:39 UTC in reply to "Comment by chaosotter"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Neither my car, nor my house, nor any of my other possessions accuse me of having stolen them every 90 days.


If you could make an infinite number of copies of your house/car for $0, they probably would. Therein lies the distinction. And it probably wouldn't be optional either.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Comment by chaosotter
by Surtur on Fri 12th Feb 2010 21:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by chaosotter"
Surtur Member since:
2009-04-15

"Neither my car, nor my house, nor any of my other possessions accuse me of having stolen them every 90 days.


If you could make an infinite number of copies of your house/car for $0, they probably would. Therein lies the distinction. And it probably wouldn't be optional either.
"

Economics 101: Economy is about the allocation of scarce goods. Notice the word scarce (-> Scarcity).

Therefore it is in my opinion a bad idea to argue about a world with infinite tangible goods based on the understanding of a world with finite tangible goods. What sort of business model would this be based on? That's a different question...

Edited 2010-02-12 21:59 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by chaosotter
by WorknMan on Fri 12th Feb 2010 23:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by chaosotter"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Therefore it is in my opinion a bad idea to argue about a world with infinite tangible goods based on the understanding of a world with finite tangible goods. What sort of business model would this be based on? That's a different question...


I don't know what you're saying, but if your point is that it's kind of retarded to try to sell something you can make infinite copies of for $0, I can't really argue that point. On the other hand, trying to argue that this same something is the same as a physical good and should be treated as such is equally as retarded. Even pirates know this, as they'll tell you that downloading an album for free is not the same as walking into a store and walking out the door with a stolen CD ...

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by chaosotter
by Surtur on Tue 16th Feb 2010 12:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by chaosotter"
Surtur Member since:
2009-04-15

Sorry, was maybe a bit vague.

My point was about living in an world you (and "lemor2") imagine and being able to reproduce infinite numbers of physical goods with really no additional costs.

You then argue based on a quote of "lemur2" that in this world people would be accused of stealing if they reproduce physical goods.

I just wanted to state that *I* think the whole economy and society of the countries in this world would in *my* opinion look probably different and arguing that it of course looks the same as nowadays on this world and everybody is accusing others of stealing is not necessarely true.

Sure you still have the costs of making *one* copy. Which the whole argument about copyright, patents, etc. is based on. (Don't get me wrong I don't think this is necessarely always a good or bad thing.)

> On the other hand, trying to argue that this same something is the same as a physical good and should be treated as such is equally as retarded.

Sorry, I am not sure if I understand you correctly ("this same something is the same as" confuses me a bit) but if I do, I agree with you.

Edited 2010-02-16 12:54 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by chaosotter
by BluenoseJake on Thu 11th Feb 2010 23:53 UTC in reply to "Comment by chaosotter"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Neither does this. It only accuses you if you have a pirated copy.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by chaosotter
by Soulbender on Fri 12th Feb 2010 05:00 UTC in reply to "Comment by chaosotter"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

It is more like the authorities comes around first to check if it is stolen and then every 90 days checks again to see if, uh, you have stolen it from, uhm, yourself.

Edited 2010-02-12 05:03 UTC

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Consumers shouldn't be sold a computer with an OS that was downloaded from a p2p network. That's a huge security risk.

Reply Score: 3

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Bittorrent is a very valid way to download an OS. It's original development purpose was to take the strain off single storage servers by spreading the download source among many. The ISO still has to pass it's check sum based on the hash provided by the original packager but as long as you stick with major distribution providers, your golden.

Now, I wouldn't say the same for a single source P2P protocol like Napster the generations that followed. A complete ISO hosted by some random unknown user's machine is far more suspect than parts of that ISO from many sources. It may not fail the check sum after download but there's a much higher risk in the source.

The lack of P2P protocol involvement also doesn't negate piracy. (piracy in the real sense of reselling stollen goods with or without "value add" malware)

There have been some huge busts in Europe. One was millions of dollars worth of perfectly replicated Windows boxed disks. Certificates, shrinkrap and everything. The crime group responsible had also injected malware into the images before stamping out the disks. This was stuff bound for store shelves and passing it into legitimate supply chains isn't hard to do. No downloading, no P2P and little chance of discovery had the truck loads not been discovered at the factory or within the first short leg of the journey.

Reply Score: 3

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

blah blah blah you're missing the point which is that you're more likely to get a trojan when you download illegal software.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

You didn't say illegal software though. You said:
"Consumers shouldn't be sold a computer with an OS that was downloaded from a p2p network. That's a huge security risk."

"download from a p2p" which does not automatically mean downloading copyright infringing software. By extension, does that mean that unlicensed software obtained without downloading means it's less likely to contain malware? Does downloading legally shared software invariably mean malware since it's downloaded?

Does the "download" qualifier mean I'm far more likely to get malware infected OS images from Debian Or ubuntu's official distribution repositories? The only possible outcome is a "huge security risk"?

I'm not seeing how downloading or using a p2p protocol like bittorrent leads invariably to high risk malware infested copyright infringing software.

Edited 2010-02-12 21:00 UTC

Reply Score: 2

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Do I think it's designed to protect consumers? Not really. But purpose aside, it will accomplish this for the most part. I don't like Microsoft, I don't use Windows nor will I ever install it on a machine I own. But I sometimes think we respond with blind hate whenever we see the word "Microsoft" in a sentence. No matter what the original purpose of this update, it will have a positive effect on the majority of users and by extension will reduce the number of malware-infected computers I have to deal with. So I'm all for it if people really must continue to use Windows.

Reply Score: 4

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Microsoft apologists aside, are there people out there really stupid enough to think this is about protecting the Customer? Windows gets loaded on what?... 90+% of new computers - that's money directly into Microsoft's pocket even though they don't print a manual, make disks, or much of anything else for the Customer, and they're worried about piracy.
How much closer to printing money do they need to get?


But it is about the customer. There are countless machines out there that have hacked versions of Windows on them that can't be updated through Windows Update because the hack explicitly turns off automatic updates. Meanwhile, the machines are getting infected with every possible brand of malware. So, what kind of experience is that for the customer? This wouldn't be an issue if they were running genuine Windows.

Secondly, why are you complaining about Microsoft selling its product and making a profit? I mean, we all pay phone bills, rent/mortgages, car payments, etc, and nobody begrudges those people their money. What makes software different? It's a product. Just like any other product, except you can't hold it in your hands. Microsoft invested millions of dollars developing that product and, whether you agree with this or not, they deserve to sell it. If you don't like it, that's fine. Don't use it. Buy a Mac. Or get a Linux box. But stop pretending that Microsoft is being unreasonable for expecting to be paid for a product that it created. That's just retarded.

Reply Score: 4

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

MS could have allowed security, or at minimum critical, updates to continue but blocked non-critical and "value add" type updates. They could have even tried a true "value added" approach rather than spinning survelance as some kind of consumer beneficial privacy invasion. MS can afford some of the smartest programmers in the world; they had options.

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

They already have some of the smartest programmers in the world.

Most consumers support these types of measures. Be glad that it is an optional update.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Most consumers support what marketing tells them. But I'm also glad that it's an optional upgrade for the moment.

Reply Score: 2

v Comment by Redeeman
by Redeeman on Fri 12th Feb 2010 00:17 UTC
v FRIDAY FUNNIES THOM?
by codebuk on Fri 12th Feb 2010 05:15 UTC
iAlex
Member since:
2010-02-06

My bet is that in time Microsoft will say this was so successful that they will implement it in Windows 8(?) without the option of removing it. So people can get used to the idea of this function before implementing it as a standard on the platform.

Reply Score: 2

Not good
by SlackerJack on Fri 12th Feb 2010 11:08 UTC
SlackerJack
Member since:
2005-11-12

This sort of thing hurts genuine customers. The idea is silly because they're getting customers to install it on already genuine Windows 7 installs.

Microsoft are basically saying; If you have a genuine copy, you may at some point have a pirated one because it checks every 90 days.

I do think people have forgiven Microsoft's past already, just because Windows 7 is good and are willing to let them get away with such horrid schemes again.

Reply Score: 3

What about corporate keys?
by azrael29a on Fri 12th Feb 2010 11:13 UTC
azrael29a
Member since:
2008-02-26

I bet that when you use one of the warez corporate license keys you will be able to install any of this WGA/WAT crap without being exposed.

Reply Score: 1

Yet another reason
by cmost on Fri 12th Feb 2010 12:18 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

This is merely one more reason why I'm glad I don't do Windows.

Reply Score: 3

good
by viator on Fri 12th Feb 2010 12:57 UTC
viator
Member since:
2005-10-11

I think they need to phone home everyday..... it should look for ANY pirated software but epecially windows apps. If found it will encrypt. And lock your pc and send all info to authoritys who will have the unlock keys and can catch you pirates red handed! :/

Reply Score: 0

RE: good - police search
by jabbotts on Fri 12th Feb 2010 17:19 UTC in reply to "good"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Will you also be submitting your family and home to random police search based on the "clear evidence" provided by any disgruntled neibour making an anonymous tipoff?

Reply Score: 2

optional WGA
by _xmv on Fri 12th Feb 2010 14:44 UTC
_xmv
Member since:
2008-12-09

i'd just like to point out that the XP WGA has always been optional, unless you wanted to install IE7.
however, if you ticked it as "don't remind me for this update".. it would still ask you to update every time which is a little annoying

Reply Score: 1

RE: optional WGA - service packs?
by jabbotts on Fri 12th Feb 2010 17:21 UTC in reply to "optional WGA"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Hm.. I may have to rebuild one of the spares at work here to check that out. I thought WGA validation became required for SP2 or latter updates. I remember originally saying "no, and don't remind me again" then having to go back and accept it before getting further updates.

Reply Score: 2

TemporalBeing
Member since:
2007-08-22

Actually, I had to dive into this a little in fall of 2009. Starting with Win7 and Windows Server 2008 by default Windows will phone home to validate your license every week. You can configure this somewhat, but it becomes problematic if you do not have an Internet connection - then Windows invalidates your valid license when it can't reach the Microsoft servers. The only way to disable this functionality is with a volume license - and even then, you have to go through special steps via the command-line to get it to validate once and be done.

More information available here:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd979805.aspx
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc303276.aspx

Reply Score: 2

Is it really Optional?
by TheTaz on Fri 12th Feb 2010 20:23 UTC
TheTaz
Member since:
2008-05-30

I haven't read through all the comments, so I'm not sure if this has been brought up.

MS prevents a lot of downloads (that aren't on the Windows Update site) unless WGA is installed. While you can probably find those downloads somewhere else on the Net... it is kind of a PITA.

I would assume that WAT will be similar in nature... meaning "optional" depends on your perspective.

Reply Score: 1

So it starts
by Gone fishing on Sat 13th Feb 2010 07:47 UTC
Gone fishing
Member since:
2006-02-22

First we have an update that checks for genuine copies. Next we will have features that depend on this update. Then we will have features disabled without this update.

The result will be millions, if not hundreds of millions of pirate copies of Windows 7 (mainly in the developing world) un-patched un-updated. The virus and malware will be developed for them, as the crackers find the inevitable holes and weaknesses in Windows 7's security model. Before you know what's what we will have armies of Windows 7 zombie bots, spam mass mailers and the situation will be as bad as XP, probably worse as broad band is even beginning to penetrate the third world.

Reply Score: 2

RE: So it starts
by darknexus on Sat 13th Feb 2010 14:52 UTC in reply to "So it starts"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Microsoft doesn't care. So long as those people are using pirated Windows, even if unpatched, they're not using an alternative platform. Simple as that. That's why I dislike it when people say that pirating Windows is taking a stand against MS. It isn't.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: So it starts
by Gone fishing on Sat 13th Feb 2010 22:36 UTC in reply to "RE: So it starts"
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

Agreed MS would much rather the developing world used pirate Windows than an Opensource OS. It helps entrench their monopoly.

Reply Score: 2

Phone Home
by r.j.l on Sat 13th Feb 2010 22:01 UTC
r.j.l
Member since:
2009-08-15

The whole phone home issue is an interesting one to me as what other product would we let a company enter our legally purchased product. How do we know what the phone home software is checking, is it checking only the OS or is it checking what applications we have installed or something more advanced than this. The answer is that we just don't know and probably never will. I guess this is a matter of trust when it comes to Microsoft phone home software. Personally with their business tactics I don't trust their motives and software checking motives.

Reply Score: 1